| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070801185741.GD20713@one.firstfloor.org> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:57:41 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Simple Performance Counters: x86_64 support On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:45:39AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > It is certainly interesting to compare alternative ways of handling the > > > instruction streams by various processors or models of processors. > > > > Well you have to do a lot more work then to handle instable TSCs then. > > I have been using this for 2 years. It works fine for my purposes. That might be on your systems, but for a mainline submission the standards are higher. > > > In particular the frequencies can be different between CPUs, they > > change (which you can catch with cpufreq notifiers) and during the > > cpufreq change period they're instable (as in you can't tell for > > some time which frequency they're currently running at and they > > might be running immediate frequencies) > > Well then simply make sure that they do not change while you measure. That would be a merge blocker in my opinion. Suitable for local hacks, but nothing we want in tree. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists